I'm not suggesting that consciousmess is illusory. The weight of evidence indicates that consciousness is a brain phenomena that does not survive brain-death.

The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually “grasp” reality.

I'm not suggesting that consciousmess is illusory. The weight of evidence indicates that consciousness is a brain phenomena that does not survive brain-death.

The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually “grasp” reality.

Alan Watts

I wouldn't suggest that that is very accurate either.

I would also suggest that science has undoubtedly shown that its methods enable us to get closer to 'reality' than any religion can.

I'm not suggesting that consciousmess is illusory. The weight of evidence indicates that consciousness is a brain phenomena that does not survive brain-death.

The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually “grasp” reality.

Alan Watts

I wouldn't suggest that that is very accurate either.

I would also suggest that science has undoubtedly shown that its methods enable us to get closer to 'reality' than any religion can.

I'm not suggesting that consciousmess is illusory. The weight of evidence indicates that consciousness is a brain phenomena that does not survive brain-death.

The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually “grasp” reality.

Alan Watts

I wouldn't suggest that that is very accurate either.

I would also suggest that science has undoubtedly shown that its methods enable us to get closer to 'reality' than any religion can.

Ill just state my position once again: Even with its limitations, the paradigm of meritocratic rational inquiry it's still our best way of discovering the nature of Nature and of reality.

As I;ve said elsewhere, we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Well, there is always the possibility that far more convincing evidence for the survival of consciousness might be discovered in the future, but the current trend in human understanding certainly doesn't bode well for it.

Evidence... You asked for evidence. . Pardon me. But those are Scientists and Mystics telling you that Life is but a Dream and death is a Myth.

That everything the eyes perceive is filtered through our personal belief.

If every brain is a part of this process, then how can we not use this only reliable source of information at least as a stepping stone for a much greater Learning?

There is no Death because my physical experience is everything I want it to be without regard to how any other physical beings are flowing the energy.

I trust the reflections of my experience when I see them experienced by another physical being.

That is all I have to place my trust.

Being Love is the next step up from recognizing the presence of it.

That is Manifesting Heaven on Earth in action. Live in the now, but I make the news once in a while, to cheer up those with the preponderance for always looking for the absence of this ever present Love. It is called a Fluff piece, and It will take you mind off of the war, long enough to tell you about the premier of the networks New Action Drama.

There is very little evidence for the survival of consciousness in any form.

There is very little against it as well.

I refuse to close my mind to either possibility.

Once again, in the absence of any compelling evidence for the survival of consciouness (in any form), the probabilities are not evenly poised.

While I'm open to such evidence, I simply won't indulge my fondness for the idea with wishful thinking.

I suppose you don't call accounts of NDE evidence? Just yesterday, I think it was on NPR, there was a guy talking about accounts by young children. He considered this better evidence than that from older kids, teenagers and adults.

And there are accounts where absence of brain function was correlated with later descriptions of actual events, things said or done by doctors or nurses reported by the "dead" patient.

sdp

Correct, NDE's are not evidence of post death survival. They are evidence of what the mind is capable of in extremis, but such experiences can now be induced.